Sure, the luridpolitical drama, which debuted on Netflix earlier this year, has become an Internet sensation, with a dream lineup of actor Kevin Spacey and director David Fincher. Plus it’s now nominated for nine awards at the Emmys this Sunday, including outstanding drama series.

But the show’swriters have an impossible task — which makes for some far-fetched plot twists. House of Cards follows the exploits of South Carolina Democratic Rep. Frank Underwood, the House majority whip, in Washington, D.C.But its basic storyline was adapted from a 1990 BBC miniseries about a British member of Parliament.As such, the writers of the American version, whose second season is now in production, must adapt their show to not only American sensibilities, but also American political institutions. The necessary plot adjustments render the American show both awkward and implausible. This isn’t the fault of the poor writers — it’san inevitable consequence of translating a parliamentary storyline to a presidential one.

Unlike TV shows where each episode is a complete unit, many of today’s best dramas extend their storylines over an entire season, 13 episodes in the case of House of Cards. And in no genre are the intricacies of plot more important than a political drama. When the events in House of Cards unfold according to Frank’s master plan, it’s proof that he had it all figured out from the get-go, that he is nothing less than a political genius. Yes, there are contingencies and blind-corners, but Frank is almost always prepared with backup plans — and backups to the backup plans — to ensure that he triumphs.

This elaborate scheming is great fun to watch. It’s also preposterous.

The entire plot of the BBC series was based on the English Parliamentary system, in which the House of Commons is the boss, and the prime minister is merely its servant. No individual citizen ever votes for a prime minister. Rather, voters elect members of Parliament to represent their local constituencies. Collectively, these members choose a prime minister to carry out Parliament’s will.

Just as the House of Commons hires the prime minister, it can also fire him or her — no election is necessary. Although deposing a prime minister is a rare occurrence, the power should not be dismissed lightly. The Commons slayed the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, when her unpopular policies endangered members’ reelection. Today, conservative members of the Commons threaten to vote out current Prime Minister David Cameron for his centrist policies, and cabinet members are angling to replace him even as we speak. As 19th-century British journalist Walter Bagehot, the most influential observer of the English political system, succinctly described the power of Parliament, “The functions of the House of Commons are important and CONTINUOUS. It does not … separate when it has elected its ruler; it watches, legislates, seats and unseats ministries, from day to day. Accordingly it is a REAL electoral body.”

In the BBC House of Cards, the chief whip, Francis Urquhart, uses his power to sabotage the Prime Minister at every turn. All his venom is unleashed on the target of his revenge. The scandals lead the Commons to fire the prime minister and replace him with the whip. Voila.

In the United States, however, it’s not so easy to fire the president. He’s guaranteed to serve out a four-year term, except in the rare case of death or impeachment, a difficult political feat. While the Commons can fire the prime minister for any reason by majority vote, impeachment in the American system is a multi-step supermajority process that the Constitution reserves specifically for “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So what’s a sociopathic, power-hungry American congressman to do? (Spoiler alert.)Like his British counterpart, Frank is furious that the president has passed him over for a position in the Cabinet. Where they differ is that since Frank lacks formal power to replace the president, he must concoct an elaborate and absurd scheme to climb to higher office: He decides to usurp the vice presidency. To do so, Frank first wins the president’s favor by orchestrating the passage of an education bill that the president supports. Whereas the whip in the British series sabotages the prime minister, Frank helps the president who has already snubbed him. This is an odd way to seek revenge.

Next, Frank induces the VP into resigning his office in order to run for governor of Pennsylvania, a move without precedent in American history. This scheme starts with Frank propping up a little-known congressman to run for the governorship.Frank then kills the congressman, prompting the VP, just as Frank had predicted, to resign his office to fill the now-vacant ticket for governor. All the while, Frank figures that the president — who had previously passed over him for the Cabinet position — will now choose him for VP. (I wanted to ask Frank: Why not just kill the VP in the first place?) Miraculously, the plan works. All political conspiracies are complicated, but this is a house of cards built on quicksand.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with artistic license, and facts should not tyrannize a good story. The British show also requires a little suspension of disbelief, but it still draws a tight, elegant line between the whip’s political powers and his goals: He wants to be the prime minister, so he manipulates Parliament into deposing the current one. Frank, meanwhile, lacks a legitimate way to overthrow the administration. The task for the writers of the American House of Cards, then, is the equivalent of jamming a square peg into a round hole; it simply cannot be done. To compensate, they concoct one ludicrous twist after another. It’s a thrilling ride, but ultimately a disappointing betrayal of the viewer’s trust.

At the same time, the show’s weaknesses actually reveal the strengths of the American system of government. Although calling for a parliamentary system is a hallowed tradition for American political scientists, these critics miss that the presidential system is more stable than the parliamentary one. The immediate power that members of parliaments have to change government has often wreaked havoc, allowing them aggrandize power for themselves. Just look at Italy, where since 1945 there have been 40 different prime ministerships. And then there is Weimar Germany, whose revolving door cabinet fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler. By contrast, the American president’s four-year term guarantees the continuity in policy necessary for a well-functioning economy and a stable political system.

On television, Frank Underwood is an evil genius. Thank goodness that in real life our political system is strong enough to resist his charm.

Joshua Braver holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and is a Ph.D. student in political science at Yale University.